About your Search

20121201
20121231
Search Results 0 to 3 of about 4
is the creation of health care exchanges. now, let me explain. these aca exchanges are online marketplaces. in short, websites. the idea is to force insurance companies to play by the same rules and compete for a large pool of customers resulting in less expensive premiums for everyone. here's how it works. let's say you're one of the 50 million people in in country without health care. you're looking to get yourself covered. you'd log on to your state's exchange or call a hotline number. the goal is to shop around for whatever plan works best for you and your family. if you are living at 138% to 400% of the poverty line, that is a family of four living off an annual income of $31,809 to $92,200, then you are eligible for government money to subsidize the cost of your premium. if you're above that level, you don't get the federal subsidy. the law requires every state to have a place for people to shop for coverage. there are three options on how they are created and operated. >> first, states can set up and run their own exchanges or if they're not quite ready to tackle is on their own, st
to bring the a.c.a. back into the negotiations for some is wild read. you still see the same kind of intrancy generals. wait a minute, who won this election? this mandate is mine. i earned it. 3% i won a national vote by 3% which in modern times is a landslide. we won seats in the senate. we took seats in the house. >> the house, if there were no part in the jerry man derring, that's as important as energizing the base and getting some move in social media. >> at the same time, they have to get a number of votes. they need 218 votes in the house. part of the art of washington politics is giving your opponents something to run against you in the next election. >> what they have to give house republicans is something they can take back to these very conservative jerry man der districts. it is not as if most people are running in swing districts. most are running in hard right districts where they can get a primary challenge. the reason you are hearing boehner ask what are you going to cut? they want the president to put some ideas on the table. all of the bad ideas, they are all com
it means to take two cases in this way at the same time? we know from the aca decision that justice roberts cares deeply about his legacy and the legacy of the court. how do we read that into this discussion? is he going to want to be part of a decision stripping rights away from people, and then he looks into the future and he's in a case like people look back and say he was the chief justice when they took rights away from millions of americans. >> reporter: we can read nothing into any specific justice's thinking about the fact they took up the defense of marriage act. that was a foregone conclusion. whenever you have federal courts that happened here, striking down an account of congress saying it's unconstitutional, the fact the supreme court would agree to hear the case was a given. the surprise here is they've agreed to take the prop 8 case from california because i think it's believed among some folks following this case that look at it this way. if you're conservative members of the court and you believe this is wrongly decided -- remember the appeals court decision below said prop
. perhaps he will vote with the liberals. and i also look optimistically at justice roberts who in the aca decision shows us he cares about the court's legacy. he doesn't want to be part of a decision that later people look book on and say he was part of taking away people's liberty. right now i am not optimistic about what this court will do. >> we've had one optimistic, one pessimistic. michelle, don't i dare sit on the fence. >> no, no. i'm off the fence. okay. i will say i agree that the court's composition should make some people nervous but i think the timing, they just had gay marriage wins at the ballot box and there has been a sea change among the electorate on this issue and it would be a little bit troublesome for the court to then at this point step in and say, no, no, we know the country is moving in this direction but we're going to stop you. >> indeed, michelle, you have actually written yourself that the president's base in a second term wants the repeal of the defense of marriage act. you've written that yourself. >> they think it's time, and they think that they've had en
Search Results 0 to 3 of about 4